The Gazette 1978

GAZETTE

SEPTEMBER 1978,

interpretation is necessary to a full understanding of the

matter on hand. When such a submission can be

experienced as a positive contribution which throws more

light on the matter, or be judged on its own merit, then

relationships between the professions and government can

be felt to be rewarding. And of course, we must play our

part in fostering such good relations. It is time that we

judged government decisions in the light of community

interest and not as penal restrictions on our freedom. Do

we respect the authority of government services, or see

them purely as agencies issuing regulations? I'm sure that

we all have examples of situations where we can adopt an

attitude of needless control, or perhaps just a greater

challenge to our professionalism. As an architect I can

immediately think of examples like government policy on

capital expenditure for schools. This can be felt as

restrictive. But at least if it is felt as a challenge by the

architect, then any

real

difficulties can be allowed to

surface, to be resolved by those involved. And the

experience has been that such attutudes that is facing the

challenge have fostered many new developments in school

building — in other words the potential for creativity has

been realised. So I believe that we should assure Dr.

Whelan — No, we don't think the answer is for us to go

away and not bother you. That would be very

irresponsible for us. The answer is for both sides to re-

examine our attitudes to the authority of the other, and to

find ways to improve the working of our relationships.

Dr. Whelan's other points about the integration of

professional people in die Civil Service belongs to the

collaborative aspect of professional work as described by

Bruce Reed.

With so many of our members in salaried employment,

we must have many members working collaboratively in

the Civil Service and other institutions. I believe that we

owe it to those colleagues that we study their situation

with a view to finding out how best we should support

them. Many of them have gone into Unions because our

associations have not recognised the relevancy of their

problems. Is it good enough that we offer them

membership which can not have any real practical benefit

and only offers some sort of sentience? Not all, but some

of our associations have avoided looking at these issues.

And I suspect that the older, and stronger assosiations,

those whose very existence offers support to the newer

groups, have been the ones most reluctant to study the

position of their members working as a collaborator. Is it

too much to ask the professions, either collectively or

individually, to study the problems of those members,

who not only represent a fair proportion of their

membership but must even represent a fair proportion of

their subscription income.

There is another issue which the professions must

tackle — and it would seem that there must be benefit in

sharing together their experience — and that is the whole

area of our representation in terms of the E.E.C. If we in

the F.P.A. fell down this year, it was in this area. We afe

written to by the Royal Institute of the Architects of

Ireland and asked to enquire about the experiences of

member associations in relation to the Advisory

Committees for each profession. We did not get very far

with our enquiries — our fault, not the fault of member

bodies. However, the issue is that when Advisory

Committees where first mentioned the professional

associations understood that the representatives of the

Practising Profession and the Teaching Institutions would

be nominated on proposals of the profession. This is not

to be, it seems. They are to be nominated by Government

after consultation with 'it is not known whom'. Only one

professional group have retained their influence in the

nomination of representatives. Now, to me this issue is

closely related to what I spoke on a few minutes ago

about mutual respect of each others authority between

government and professions. If the profession does not

influence its own representation at Brussels, obviously its

authority in its own area of competence is being denied.

And denial of the authority of the myriad of groups within

any modern society, not just professional groups could lead

to a dangerous situation.A dictatiorial government,

strong words I'll admit, but descriptive of any

government which denies competent authority, is not

what we should be aiming at as we enter the 1980's. Why

is it, that the struggle to find and assert authority on the

part of many, whether communities in their residents' and

tenants' associations, or members of churches, or indeed

that half of the population who are women, should be

countered by the denial of here-to-fore accept authority

by the bureaucratic arm of the representatives of that self-

same society?

We owe it not only to ourselves, but also to society, not

to accept rejection of our uthority. But we also owe it to

society not to reject the authority of society's

representatives in government. So while we must be

strong in our own defence, we must also be strong in

confronting the challenges facing a young society heading

into an unknown future. Really, all I'm saying is that in

any event, and I repeat 'in any event' — we must be

professional.

Nuala Kernan, M.R.I.A.I.

Incorporated Law Society

of Ireland

PLEASE NOTE that the Society's examinations will commence

on the following dates and the closing dates for receipt of entries

are as shown:

Examination

Second Irish

Old Regulations

Date of Commencement

5th December, 1978

Closing date

17th Nov. 1978.

New Regulations

Date of commencement

Closing date

Final Exam: First Part 12th-15th December 78 17th Nov. 1978

First Irish

For All Apprentices

Date of commencement

4th December, 1978

Closing Date

17th Nov. 1978

149